"If, as seems likely, Iraq succeeds, Republicans will be able to say it was in spite of the Democrats' efforts. If, as remains possible, it fails, Republicans will be able to say it was because of the Democrats' efforts."
Usually, people attempting to advance staggeringly disingenuous political arguments don't broadcast it like this, but, unfortunately, whatever points Reynolds may have gotten for candor are entirely canceled out by his only being candid about his intention to be dishonest.
Eric Martin unpacks Reynolds' nonsense:
"What remarkable analysis. Without definining, or even hinting at the definition of "success," Reynolds breezily sweeps aside myriad factors that have contributed to the failure of the Iraq endeavor to leave the blame solely at the feet of the Democrats. Not satisfied to leave the Dems on the hook for failure, Reynolds suggests that even if Iraq does succeed, we could still blame the Democrats for its near-failure. The troops have been stabbed in the back and that much is sure, says Reynolds, but the patient might yet pull through.
In Reynolds' world...Bush and his GOP compatriots have not been the cause of failures in Iraq even though they have been in control of every decision - large and small - every step of the way. Nor do the Iraqi people or regional rivals have any agency, apparently. No, an impotent, out of power Democratic Party that has made a total of zero decisions, and passed not a single piece of legislation against Bush's wishes, will be the cause of failure in Iraq, or the chief obstacle to a success that comes only through perseverence in the face of such obstructionism."
Read the whole thing.
You may also like
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)